The traditional publishers are actively manipulating the reviews of their books on Amazon and GoodReads alike:
Every “A-list” author from the major sci fi imprints seems to start out with 100+ “pre-release” reviews (almost all 4 or 5 stars) on Goodreads. Now, this could just be successful ARC promotion. That’s entirely possible.
Another explanation is that they have teams of people willing to pad reviews ahead of release. Idk, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Especially since most of these A-listers see their Goodreads averages plummet once actual readers get their hands on the books. I’m not talking about a gradual decline. I’m talking about books that have a 4.3+ rating pre-release ending up in the 3.5 – 3.6 range within a few months.
If you go back through the Goodreads Choice Awards nominees, the trend jumps out of the data. A huge percentage of these books are extremely poorly rated by readers. Not at the time of release, mind you, but within a few months.
All of which is to say, nobody pulls more shenanigans and manipulates the book-buying public more than trad pub.
No, it’s not possible. While there is an organic element of pre-release review-stoking, the repetitive and reliable nature of the pattern indicates that this is a level of manipulation by favored players that Amazon is willing to tolerate. Amazon is not only confirmed to play favorites, but it habitually indulges in a level of charades and shenanigans much more comprehensive than anyone suspects, and has done so from the very beginning.
Ever wonder why Hugh Howey was never able to follow up on his incredible “success”? Or why his “super-popular” books were so mediocre? He was just a variant on the traditional publisher’s manufactured bestseller.
If it gets big fast, it is fake. Every single fucking time.
If I had more bandwidth, one of the things I would do is design a truly impartial and objective review site that aggressively resisted review-fluffing and review-sinking alike.